Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brookfield Properties Retail Group

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong forum.. Merger requests are to be made on the article talk page. See WP:MERGE. Editors are nonetheless free to act on this discussion. Sandstein 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Properties Retail Group[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am actually nominating this for the purpose of merging rather than deleting. I feel that in order to get eyes on this discussion, bringing it here will help. WP:COI editor Dvruthven, proposed that Brookfield Properties Retail Group be merged into Brookfield Property Partners at Talk:Brookfield_Properties#Merger_proposal. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not specifically subsidiary, but rather a division or a business unit, so it may be notable in its own right, or it may be better merged into Brookfield Asset Management, with links to the individual subsidiary pages. The list of assets could be created as a "List of assets owned by Brookfield Properties" yadda yadda yadda. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TonyTheTiger: Just to clarify, my proposal was to merge Brookfield Properties Retail Group into Brookfield Properties, not into Brookfield Property Partners. This is because the retail group is now a division of Brookfield Properties, so that is the most appropriate place for the content. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks User:TonyTheTiger for doing that. I must point out that Brookfield Properties Retail Group is a division, not a subsidiary as its Infobox indicates. Do we know that all its listed assets belong to Brookfield Property Partners subsidiary Brookfield Properties? If so, then the merger is one possibility. However, I note the articles lack neutral point of view, and it may fail WP:Notability on grounds of lack of significant press coverage on its own right and, crucially, as currently written. So, I'm wondering if the following merger proposal alternative might be in order? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brookfield Properties, but strongly also recommend performing a second-step merger whereby Brookfield Properties (a likely stub-class article when you cut out the wikipuffery and lack of NPOV) is merged into Brookfield Property Partners, as a separate and shrunken down section (with improved prose). If that second stage merger is not done, or even if it is, I recommend stripping out the list of Brookfield Properties Retail Group's assets and creating or merging them into a List of assets owned or controlled by Brookfield Asset Management page. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dmehus: I'm the Brookfield employee who proposed the merger to Brookfield Properties. I would welcome the removal of any puffery currently remaining in the Brookfield Properties article. (In fact, I requested the removal of a few lines that seemed overly promotional in my most recent edit request.) However, Brookfield Properties and Brookfield Property Partners are distinct companies with separate identities, each of which is notable in its own right. Their notability is borne out by significant coverage in reliable sources already cited in the respective articles, though I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dvruthven, Thanks for your reply, but I'd point out separate companies does not equal notability. We have cases where small- to mid-sized Canadian banks and credit unions have been deleted because they amount to little more than directory listings and/or are stubs. I think there's a strong case for merging, in a second-stage merger, Brookfield Properties into Brookfield Property Partners as a separate section in order to improve the one from being a stub-class article to a starter or even a C-class article. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.